Why We Should Not Eat Genetically Modified Foods

Because of the growing demand of basic necessities like food, many countries and as

well as crop producers are recently convinced that genetically modified foods or crops are the

best response not only to the lack of food for the populace, but also to respond to the

tightening market competition. The study of GM food as substitute to naturally produced

crops exposed contradicting views on the possible effects to nature and to humans.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are organisms with altered genetic composition.

Their DNA structures are those that only occur through the help of modern biological

alterations also called as gene technology or genetic engineering. Through this leap in

modern technology, genes of a certain organism can be transferred and mixed with the

genetic composition of a completely different organism to produce an output that resembles

both the characteristics of the two non-related species (WHO, 2009).

Agricultural biotechnology Crops are being grown and cultured this way in order to

produce crops that are perceived more beneficial and less costly for consumers. Many

farmers are now learning about the benefits of genetic technology in avoiding pests and

lessening the cost of better production of crops. Consumers, thus, receive more than what

they pay for because of the prevailing competition in the market ( Though there are a lot of

possible benefits of this young discovery, a lot of issues still arise and controversies that

oppose the promotion of continuous production of GM foods. Many countries remain

unsupportive because of the perceived adverse effects of producing GM crops. Until now, the

benefits of modern biological technology still remain to be highly contested and not widely

accepted (Whitman, 2009).

There several reasons why genetically modified foods are not supported by several

governments. One instance that exhibits the lack of support and confidence to these unnatural

products was when the African Government politely rejected tons of GM foods offered by the

federal government of the United States of America. Though experiencing hunger, Africans

opt not to accept these goods because of their lack of confidence to the process of cultivating

these crops. One of the main issues that raise the eye brows of many sectors of society would

be the issue of safety. For many, GM foods are not safe to humans (Whitman, 2001).

Studies concerning the effects of GM foods to humans are still considered to be

insufficient to make it universally accepted. According to the latest report of the World

Health Organization, there a numerous literatures that investigates a) direct health effects

(toxicity), (b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components

thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e)

nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which

could result from the gene insertion. However, these literatures provided limited results that

make it hard for all scholars to agree on the argument it is proposing. The findings of these

works would show that there is still a considerable percentage of probability that GM foods

can provoke allergic reactions, gene transfer and outcrossing to humans. It is also suspected

that GM foods may have indirect effects to food safety and security. As of now, researches

related to the long term effects are still unable to determine the underlying outcomes of

regular consumption of these genetically modified foods (Le, et al., 2004). Until today,

scientists are still unable to explain the possibility of long-term effects of consuming these

foods in a case-to-case basis.

Another argument that opposes the promotion of these would be the ethical issues

attached to the propagation of these crops. Even though they are just crops, it is undeniably

true that humans are now beginning to alter the works of nature. “Some critics would even

believe that scientists are robbing God of his omnipotent privileges by tampering with the

gene pool of organisms” (Le, et al., 2004). Conservatives contest the right of humans to

produce new kinds of organisms in the form of genetically modifies foods. Like a robber,

scientists are accused of using God’s work for his selfish motifs. In many societies, religious

beliefs like, “God is the sole creator and no man shall alter his works”, still exists. This

maybe the reason why even if time comes when GM food consumption is already strongly

backed with scientific studies, people would still choose to consume naturally produced

products because of strong belief in the idea of God’s prerogatives. Eating is indeed a subject

that encompasses many disciplines like anthropology, nutrition, agriculture, and etcetera.

People all over the world are not just looking for the tasty dishes; they consider factors like

culture and the science behind the food they are eating (Brooks and Barfoot, 2009).

Last but not the least is the argument that relates to the harm that GM crop production

to the environment itself. Assessment of the risks involving the environment encompasses

the evaluation of the unintended effects which could arise from the mixing and insertion of

the genes. “It also involves the appraisal of the characteristics of the GMO and its effect and

stability in the environment, combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in

which the introduction will take place” (WHO, 2009). As we all know, any form of

agricultural activity can affect the environment. In this case, GM crop production possesses

the possibility accelerating the damaging effects of agriculture and can damage the

sustainability in the environment. If gene alteration would continuously occur, it is unlikely

for hybrid plants to thrive in the wilds since their characteristics are solely designed to fit an

agricultural environment. Also, these kinds of crops may have new qualities that can hinder

gene flow of other plants and animals, like insects that remain highly dependent on other

actors in the ecosystem. Not only to the environment per se that its possible negative effects

can be traced, but also on animals. We can continue on predicting but we can never really tell

unless the effects are already felt. “Recently, many studies are focusing on the detrimental

effects on beneficial insects or a faster induction of resistant insects; the potential generation

of new plant Pathogens; the potential detrimental consequences for plant biodiversity and

wildlife, and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local

situations; and the movement of herbicide resistance genes to other plants” (Green facts,

2004). Any harm brought about by the adverse effects to nature is certainly something that

affects not only humans, but also those of other species. For many years, scientists studied

nutrients that are beneficial to us (Nestle 2005). We should not waste what we have learned

from these studies just for a promise that assures us of nothing big yet.

Technology is promising us of many benefits but does not promise us of solely

positive outcomes. Even if the risks are already overstated, potential harms still exist to

remind us of safety through proceeding carefully with our ambition to make our lives better.

Consuming GM foods may be great for many consumers and crop producers, but it is never

too late for us to believe that further studies on both their positive and negative effects would

be the best step towards the proper use of a relatively new discovery of mankind. In the end,

it would still be sustainability and security that would weigh the most. GM foods could be

good for us today but the question is; would it still be good for the future generations?

REFERENCES

Brooks, Graham and Barfoot, Peter. “GM crops: the global socioeconomic and environmental

impact – the first nine years 1996- 2004”. PG Economics Ltd, UK. October 2005.

< http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/globalimpactstudyfinal.pdf>

Greenfacts.Org. “Scientific Facts on Genetically Modified Crops”. Greenfacts.Org Official

Website. 2004. < http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/>

Le, Fernandez and Gabriel. “Genetically Modified Food”. The Traprock, Vol. 3,

May 2004, pp 37 – 40

Nestle, Marlon.“From Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Heath”.

Research Papers: A Guide and Workbook.PM Emblem Helath.

July 20, 2009. Pp.353-356

Schicaser, Eric. “Food Controversies: From fast Food Nation”. Research Papers: A Guide

and Workbook.PM Emblem Helath. July 20, 2009. Pp.349- 353

Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?”. 2001.

< http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php>

World Health Organization. “20 QUESTIONS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM)

FOODS” . WHO Official Website. Accessed: July 20, 2009.

< http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/>

OUTLINE

I. What are GMO’s?a. Present view on genetically modified foods and organisms. b. Studies concerning GM foods.

II. Adverse effects to humans.a. Unproven long-term effects of consuming GM foods/crops. b. Perceived effects, as according to recent reports and researches.

III. Ethical issues concerning GMO’s and GM crop production.IV. Adverse effects to the environment.

a. Effects to the environment per se.b. Effects to other organisms within the ecosystem.

V. Conclusion